Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption?

Lets take a look at the new ‘Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage’ agreed to by the UNFCCC COP in Warsaw last week, and its potential for breeding a climate of corruption.

Now that the COP19 has concluded, lets see what has actually been accomplished. I’ve seen a number of articles discussing walkouts, conflicts between developing and developed countries. Not a lot was accomplished, but there is now a new ‘Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.’

The ministers decided that a Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage would be agreed to and that it would be housed under the Conference of Parties. The part about deciding how this mechanism would get the funds in future remained the only unresolved piece of the puzzle.

Placing the mechanism under the Conference of Parties is a compromise for both the U.S. and the G77+ China group. Conference of Parties refers to the highest and most empowered body of the UN convention where each country is represented. The COP is empowered to make the most fundamental and critical decisions that lesser bodies are not. But housing the Warsaw Loss and Damage mechanism under the COP leaves the window open of shifting it one way or the other in next couple of years.

U.S. wanted that the mechanism should not become an independent body and be placed under the existing Adaptation body. This would have ensured that the idea of compensation, reparation and guilt of the developed countries for being the largest emitters of accumulated greenhouse gases is done away with. The G77+ China group wanted just the opposite.

The issue of finance and building the new agreement under the existing principles of the convention remained open though sources in the G77+China explained that not much could be expected out of the finance stream. They said, almost all developed countries had made clear that there was no hope of them committing either to a timeline for delivery of promised funds at Warsaw.

The so-called “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” will from next year commit developed nations to providing expertise and potentially aid to countries hit by climate-related impacts.

However, the vague wording fell short of the kind of detailed commitments on additional funding and avoided a commitment to compensation that many developing nations had been seeking.

Christiana Figueres, head of the UN climate change secretariat, said progress on loss and damage was essential in the wake of more frequent storms, such as the super typhoon Haiyan which tore through the Philippines earlier this month killing more than 5,000 people.

“Let us again be clear that we are witnessing ever more frequent, extreme weather events and the poor and vulnerable are paying the price,” she said.

The summit once again saw tensions between developed and developing nations laid bare, with poorer countries responding angrily to moves by Japan, Australia and Canada to water down previous climate commitments.

There was also frustration at US opposition to the loss and damage mechanism and the failure of industrialised nations to make fresh emission reduction and climate financing commitments. Developed countries have agreed to prepare statements once every two years on how they are planning to scale up climate finance to deliver $100bn per year by 2020.

Earlier in the week around 800 people representing civil society groups, quit the summit, walking out in a mass protest at the reduced ambition from some countries and the Polish government’s decision to host a coal industry conference in parallel with COP 19.

However, concerns remain that differences over the key issues of climate financing and the way in which emission reductions should be shared between the world’s largest polluters, such as the US, China, the EU, and India will continue to dominate the long running negotiations.

A climate for corruption?

Climate scientists frequently bemoan their ‘communication problem,’, i.e. that people aren’t sufficiently alarmed. Well the IPCC seems to have the opposite problem with the UNFCCC: the UNFCCC seems to assume that every weather hazard is associated with anthropogenic global warming. And this is in spite of the very reasonable IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events (SREX) which finds very little evidence to support attribution of recent extreme events to AGW. Most specifically, with regards to tropical cyclones, the AR5 has even pulled back on the expectations for future intensity increases, now saying that an increase in intensity is ‘more likely than not’ (from ‘likely’ in the AR4).

While I am a big fan of strategies to reduce vulnerabilities to extreme weather events, I see three big problems with response strategies targeted at presumed AGW-enhanced extreme events:

Assuming that future vulnerability is chiefly associated with effects from AGW (e.g. sea level rise) may lead to ineffective adaptation strategies that potentially increases vulnerability and neglect of other strategies that might more effectively reduce vulnerability

Tying disaster prevention aid to AGW has the potential to motivate many types of corruption, even ‘cooking’ the data to make the country more deserving of aid.

And finally, thinking that reducing CO2 emissions is going to help with extreme events in the 21st century is highly misguided, even if you buy the IPCC’s projections.

With regards to #2, my previous post Climate for Corruption is worth rereading in view of the Warsaw pact, which is summarized by this quote:

Corruption and climate change? Most people don’t see a connection. This is likely because they aren’t in the habit of thinking of climate change as a multi-billion dollar global industry. And wherever money flows plentifully, corruption is quick on its heels. – Alice Harrison, Transparency International’s Climate Governance Program

Press release: rapid sea level rise in Bangladesh

A prime example of #1 and #2 is suggested by this press release issued by John Pethick:

Calls for the west to compensate developing nations such as Bangladesh for the impacts of sea level rise are frequent, and were reiterated this week in the COP conference in Warsaw when Bangladesh delegates demanded US$100 billion to recoup the losses of climate change[1].

A recent research paper[2] casts some doubt on these claims, since in most cases sea level rise has a local as well as a global component and in some cases, such as south west Bangladesh, this local component is significantly greater than the global response to climate change. The paper shows that a large part of the rapid rate of sea level rise in Bangladesh is due to the construction of flood embankments, designed to prevent flooding but which in fact actually increase the risk – providing an “own goal” rather than one from the west.

Sea level rise in the south west of Bangladesh is shown by this research to be partly due to natural subsidence of the delta but, in addition, the rate of sea level rise here has been exacerbated by the construction of flood embankments, forcing the tide into constricted channels and thus causing an increase in tidal range. This means that, in these so-called ‘protected’ areas, high tide levels – the cause of floods – are increasing at the rate of 17 mm per year at the present time– compared to the IPCC 5th Report prediction for increases in the rates of mean (average) sea level of between 4.3 mm and 11.1 mm per year by 2100[3]. If the increase in tidal range continues (and this is problematic) then in south west Bangladesh by 2100 the total rise in sea level, that is the addition of local and global components[4], could be as much as 2.43 m with catastrophic impacts on this densely populated area.

The standard measurement of sea level rise is to take the average of water level readings, including both high and low tides, this is the measurement quoted by the IPCC as well as the Bangladesh authorities. But if tidal range is increasing, as it is in the embanked estuaries of Bangladesh, then high tide levels increase while low tide levels decrease so that the average approaches zero. In Bangladesh this average rate sea level rise is now around 3mm per year and this is the measure being used to calibrate ongoing flood defence measures while the 17 mm per year increase in high tide, mainly due to local factors, has been conveniently ignored. Instead, Bangladesh calls for compensation from the west for future sea level rise, part of which compensation will be used to increase the level of flood protection – so perpetuating, even exacerbating, the problem.

[1] Prime Minister Sheikh Hasiniininterview with Washington Post, December 2012: ‘It is impossible for Bangladesh alone to take action against the rising sea level, as it has been a cumulative effect of global emission in which Bangladesh does not have any role. It is the responsibility of global community to address this issue as urgently as possible.’

On June 27, 2013 the World Bank, which has already given $1.6 billion in total concessionary lending to the Least Developed Country (LDC), allocated $400 million more to the Bangladesh Water Development Board to upgrade the nation’s water defense system.

The initiative, named the “Coastal Embankment Improvement Project,” is aimed at rehabilitating 17 Bangladeshi polders, portions of land built around the country’s coastal areas to prevent flood devastation.

Climate change and climate variability have been linked with the gradual deterioration of the embankment system. According to the World Bank, two-thirds of “productive” land is projected to be lost in southern Bangladesh with an anticipation of a 65-cm sea level rise by 2080.

JC analysis

The Bangladesh sea level rise is an excellent example to highlight the problems and challenges with the Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damages.

According to the IPCC, global sea level rise is expected to rise at the rate of about 4 mm/yr, or about 65 cm increase by 2080. Observed sea level rise in Bangladesh is 17 mm/yr. The WorldBank’s solution is not only inadequate to deal with a projected sea level rise that may exceed 2 m, but according to Pethick, the so-called ‘cure’ – polders (flood embankments) – are actually making the sea level rise problem worse.

Is the Bangladeshi government and the World Bank government aware of this? They are aware of Pethick’s work (and there are other papers that document this issue also), and it is not difficult to imagine a motivation for effectively minimizing the sea level rise to fit into the AGW expectations. So why this charade of spending all this money on something that won’t work and may potentially make the problem worse? Well of course there is uncertainty in all this (including Pethick’s estimates). However, the objective of reducing Bangladesh’s vulnerability to storm surges and sea level rise seems to have gotten lost in the desire to spend and receive money and to play the politics of AGW Loss and Damage.

Now, with the new Warsaw pact, multiply this by the number of developing countries, all vying for a piece of the Loss and Damage fund. Strategies to succeed are based on torquing every problem to be caused by AGW, and so to exaggerate or minimize existing problems to fit into some preconceived AGW damage magnitude, and relatively ignore other potentially more serious problems. And the developed world will pay the bills, often for things that do not help address the real problems.

So, what to do? I think it would have been better to remove the Loss and Damage fund from the COP and divorce it from AGW. There is a real need to help the developing countries reduce their vulnerability from extreme weather events. But posing this as an AGW issue isn’t warranted and distracts from the broader issues of reducing vulnerability to extreme events, which are relentlessly impoverishing in the developing world.

I realize divorcing Loss and Damage from AGW would be an enormous challenge, but it might make this more palatable to some of the developed countries and provide something more useful to the developing countries. And why I’m giving ‘advice’ here, don’t forget to figure out how to deal with the corruption issue Climate for Corruption.

308 responses to “Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption?”

“The ministers decided that a Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage would be agreed to and that it would be housed under the Conference of Parties. The part about deciding how this mechanism would get the funds in future remained the only unresolved piece of the puzzle.”

“The ministers decided that a massive amount of other people’s money shall be spent, and the people who will have to pay will have virtually no say in how much or how. The part about how to convince those people to be so stupid with their money remained the only unresolved piece of the puzzle.”

As far as the civil rights act, I am of two minds: 1. on the one hand, it seems reasonable to have a law that says you can’t discriminate on the basis of what is usually a meaningless feature such as skin color or religion. 2. But you should be able to determine who comes on your property and if you turn away business, it should hurt you in the long run. So on the face of it, it makes no sense to stop people from hurting themselves by refusing to serve an entire class of customers. On the other hand, you should be able to kick people out for their behavior or past behavior such as rowdiness or passing bad checks. It would be wrong if the first rule was used to prevent you from exercising this right.
The problem before the 1965 Civil Rights Act is that in many small towns, for example, the local law enforcement and judicial system were in on the corruption, so that if a store owner wanted to serve everyone, local vigilantes would use violence against the black customer, the store owner, and his store and the law would cover for the vigilantes. So the free market aspect of losing business was not allowed to operate.
To say that you are not for certain aspects of the civil rights act is not necessarily wrong, but it is exceedingly naive for a politician to think that one can have a rational debate about anything in this country. One side uses mainly there emotional knee-jerk response to every issue and resorts to name calling at the beginning of the discussion. And of course both major political parties think it is ok to force their ideas down others throats, especially if they got more than 50% in an election once.

“Let us again be clear that we are witnessing ever more frequent, extreme weather events and the poor and vulnerable are paying the price,”

reminded me of another statement
” But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”
If you read that statement, it is entirely true…
want to say one thing true
want you to listen true
Im going to say this again true
He said it again true

Global warming alarmism continues to be like a disease that only infects Western hypocrites while the rest of the world’s population is thankfully immune. Even the fruits of our largess have become bitter fruits–e.g., “The President, the World Bank, and the Export-Import Bank,” says Steve Goreham (‘Climate Policies Lock Chains on Developing Nations’) have accepted the ideology of Climatism, the belief that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. By restricting loans to poor nations, they hope to stop the planet from warming. But what is certain is that their new policies will raise the cost of electricity in poor nations and prolong global poverty.”

With the Bangladeshi self-imposed flooding in mind, and considering the burning of wood pellets to produce energy in the UK, and the troubles caused by palm oil production to the Brazilian cold rainforest, and and and…

…does anybody know of any AGW-related project that has caused more positives than negatives?

omnologos
Yes – coal fired power plants. The massive increases in electricity have dramatically improved economies, jobs, health care, and the environment – with much cleaner air. By contrast, burning biomass in developing countries causes major air pollution and is a primary cause of much lower life expectancy.
The Copenhagen Consensus documents these benefits of economic development (driven by fossil fuels) since 1900 in Outcome

This is a central issue. Tropical cyclones, coastal flooding and droughts are occurring anyway. If there is an effect from AGW, it is an incremental one that can only be determined by long-term statistics. It is the incremental fraction that should come out of loss and damage funds, not the whole amount. For example if the frequencies of these double, 50% of the cost could come out of the funds for each event thereafter.

The political leaders of the rich nations are hoist with their own petard. With Barak Obama, David Cameron, and all the rest of them shouting from the rooftops that CAGW is the main cause of every weather disaster that is now occurring, it is natural for the poor nations to demand compensation.

Surely by now some politician who matters ought to WANT to believe that CAGW is a hoax. David Cameron is rumored to have said, “We must get of this green crap”. Maybe George Osborne is the one who will finally say of the hoax of CAGW “Enough is enough”.

If I were Osborne I would be thinking I had more pressing things to deal with than be distracted by the screaming banshees of the offended left that would appear from every orifice if he came out and said what he appears to think. It’s unfortunate because he seems to be one of the very few who has any clue what’s actually going on in that government, and that’s not something I thought I would be saying when he was appointed.

A much better approach to the problems faced by developing countries would be to return to methods of the past. The West should develop extensive covert operations to undermine dictators and other oppressive governments and at the same time foment capitalism, the rule of law, and personal freedom and responsibility.

Josh, If you’re so naive (most polite term I can think of) that you really believe these people are going to take our money and use it for the purpose for which it was intended, then there’s no sense trying to explain it to you. It’s like trying to explain the ways of the world to a 5 year old. Can’t be done.

One size fits all in international treaties of late – whether it is the International Treaty for Plant Rights, or the Climate Change negotiations, or the intent to stop nuclear proliferation – the small countries line up for money from the rich countries and form an answer that fits that modus operandi. Too bad really.

Western civilization is staggering through global politics like a heroin addict, being saved temporarily from death by nihilism by the occasional overman, e.g., George Bush saying, “No, no, no,” to Kyoto and foi2009.pdf (i.e., CRUgate’s whistleblower who ratted on the climate alarmists on the eve of the Eurocommies’ attempt to run the board in Copenhagen).

“The ministers decided that a Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage would be agreed to and that it would be housed under the Conference of Parties. The part about deciding how this mechanism would get the funds in future remained the only unresolved piece of the puzzle.”

This is exactly the direction they always take…once they figure out they cannot get it from governments they will try to get it from companies directly.

Regarding funds for projects in developing countries, there should be a matching aspect to it. That is, the country itself has to commit a fraction of its own funds to get matched. The ratio doesn’t have to be 1:1, but some level can be chosen that means that the country has to be serious about what it proposes, and doesn’t just freeload off a world funding pool.

Reparations for past “carbon sins” or development aid to underdeveloped nations for green energy projects are both simply boondoggles.

CAGW is a multi-billion dollar big business and third world tin-horn dictators are all lining up for a piece of the pie.

But it is refreshing to see that the politicians of the developed world have recognized in Warsaw that they will never get their taxpayers to go along with such a boondoggle, and have therefore rejected its implementation.

More controversial, perhaps, is the concept of reparations. I view this as countries also being responsible for their past emissions, which does balance the cost responsibility better between developing and developed countries. It is like a retroactive carbon tax. I can also see how the US might be against this.

What about putting some elements on the positive side of the balance sheet?

Our minuscule emissions as a country have been more than paid for by advances in medicines, language, law, art, architecture, communications, housing, and a myriad other things that mean humanity is immeasurably better off than before the industrial revolution. Are the poorer nations going to pay the developed countries for the immense contribution these benefits we have created are making to their own populations?
Tonyb

Our minuscule emissions as a country have been more than paid for by advances in medicines, language, law, art, architecture, communications, housing, and a myriad other things that mean humanity is immeasurably better off than before the industrial revolution.

Let’s extend the analogy. Nazi Germany (yeah, Godwin!) and the Soviets contributed a great deal of technology to the world’s benefit. Should we subtract those as we attempt to account for the harms that they caused?

A parent abuses his/her child even while providing them shelter and food. Should we discount the abuse by the value of the benefits they provided?

To be clear, I am not analogizing the “we” related to the “our” in your comment to Nazis of the Soviet Union, but I am asking for your guiding philosophy on what criteria do you use when deciding what goes onto the two sides of the ledger sheet, respectively.

Assuming that we can agree that there are “harms” to 3rd world countries that result from the actions of developed countries (the disproportionate use of fossil fuels being one, particularly contentious example), should the benefits from the products of the developed world necessarily be considered in balance?

Suppose the US decided to invade a 3rd world country to exploit its citizenry for slavery. Should the contributions the US has made in science, medicine, etc., be considered in balance? Obviously, that is an extreme example, but it is offered as an extreme condition for moving back to understanding whether you think there is some criterion we can use to decide how to determine which actions causing harm should be considered in balance, and which shouldn’t?

Just from the points made on this one blog it is clear that an equitable system is simply impossible..

This sounds as if you’re expecting some authority to determine equity. With such a mindset, yes, an “equitable system is simply impossible,” because there will never be complete agreement.

Equity is impossible if people ask for an authority to decide.

On the other hand, if people are open and committed to stakeholder dialog, equity is achievable – even if what is achieved isn’t consistent with your, personal, definition, or that if GaryM or Peter Lang or any other individual.

Any postulated but totally unsubstantiated “losses” these underdeveloped countries may have suffered as a result of “AGW caused by industrialized nations” was far outweighed by the benefits they received, as tony b writes.

Use your head.

And don’t bring silly analogies with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. They just make you look stupid (even if you aren’t).

Arguably, the steam engine ushered in the Industrial Revolution, which in turn ended slavery. Slavery ended in Great Britain and in the northern US not when people become more virtuous, but when the paradigm didn’t fit the production apparatus any more.

Watt patented the steam engine in 1781. Slavery was abolished in the UK in 1833. Coincidence?

Any postulated but totally unsubstantiated “losses” these underdeveloped countries may have suffered as a result of “AGW caused by industrialized nations” was far outweighed by the benefits they received, as tony b writes.

Great point. So the the “industrialized world,” can enslave any citizens of any 3rd world country, or do any similar damage, until such time that you deem the damage that would be inflicted would equal the benefits that you deem have been accrued by virtue of contributions from the industrialized world.

Thanks for explaining. If I were smarter, I would have picked up on it sooner.

“Slavery ended in Great Britain and in the northern US not when people become more virtuous, but when the paradigm didn’t fit the production apparatus any more.”

Do they even really teach history any more?

The steam engine ended slavery?

Yeah, those guilds sure used a lot of unskilled slave labor.

Slavery didn’t end with the steam engine. It hasn’t ended even today when, surpisingly, there are machines even better than steam engines available world wide even as we speak. No slavery is not the product of human evil, and it has not been stopped, where it has been stoped, by human decency. It is just a matter of the inexorable march of the economic class war.

Wait, undo the civil war, dig up all the dead. There was nothing to fight over. We just had to ship steam engines to the south.

OK, another way to look at it. Say there was a drug that cured some people and killed some people before it was taken off the market. Does that mean they don’t have to compensate the relatives of those killed because some other people were cured?

The subject matter here is the Warsaw Loss and Damage Fund, whereby impoverished, underdeveloped dictatorships in the third world are to be paid reparations by the industrially developed nations for postulated climate-related hardships they have endured resulting from AGW caused by the industrialized nations.

The taxpayers of the industrially developed nations are not going to go along with such a hare-brained scheme to pick their pockets, and even the fuzzy-headed politicians attending Warsaw were able to realize this – so it’s not going anywhere.

All of this has nothing to do with slavery, which is still practiced in some of these countries, but has long been abolished in the developed world.

And tony b has simply pointed out that, before one tallies up a purported AGW-related debt owed by the developed world to these undeveloped nations, one should also add in the benefits these nations derived from western civilization.

I dunno, tonyb. One of the most severe of all El Nino events occurred within a year or two of the British settling around Port Jackson in 1788. As repeated monsoon failures brought on the Great Deccan Famine, the birds were dropping dead from the air in Sydney and at Parramatta. Coincidence?

It took us another hundred years before we could shake off the colonial yoke and have our own super-drought. (Can’t blame the poms for 1902, I s’pose. although it would be just like you imperialists to pinch all the rain on the way out and leave us with a bunch of useless CO2.)

Oh, willard, the poor beggar soaked his crust of bread in the vapors rising from the stewpot, and the rich man’s soul rang with each clink of the gold coins. And if you don’t know the end of the story, I doubt you were there.
===============

Any postulated but totally unsubstantiated “losses” these underdeveloped countries may have suffered as a result of “AGW caused by industrialized nations” was far outweighed by the benefits they received, as tony b writes

And this:

..dictatorships in the third world are to be paid reparations by the industrially developed nations for postulated climate-related hardships they have endured resulting from AGW caused by the industrialized nations.

Did you read Judith’s post? If you didn’t, I would suggest reading it. If you did, I’d suggest reading it again.

Once you have done that, let’s talk about the fundamental logical flaw reflected in your comment above. It is one that renders you comments essentially to be a non-sequitur.

I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with verb tense.

I think that Judith’s criticisms are quite cogent and important – although I don’t exactly agree with her conclusion. What you wrote, however, is dreck.

You clearly have internalized some moral construct for determining when people are responsible for the damages they cause others, and when they aren’t. From that construct, you have determined that countries that emit CO2 disproportionately should not be accountable for any damages those emissions cause to people in other countries around the globe.

I am asking you questions to help me understand more about your moral construct. Why won’t you make it more explicit?

You clearly have internalized some moral construct for determining when people are responsible for the damages they cause others, and when they aren’t. From that construct, you have determined that countries that emit CO2 disproportionately should not be accountable for any damages those emissions cause to people in other countries around the globe. ”

You and your conspiracy theories, why not just assume that I didn’t see your message rather than that I am ducking it? I’ve been at the Met office today doing research. Or does answering vague questions dotted randomly around the Climate Etc ether take priority?

My position is that AFTER extensive research it is VERY difficult to see that Co2 is causing the harm you believe. Sorry, but I have conscientiously looked through 1000 years of records and undoubtedly weather events were worse during the periods of the LIA than they are now.

Moving on, there are two sides to a balance sheet. Fossil fuel has enabled man to live a richer, healthier and better life than without it and those that created the means for this improvement in our previously short and miserable lives should be rewarded. Our Co2 emissions are relatively small and any alleged historic excess has long since been absorbed by the half life of co2.

China has emitted much more than us which is still in the atmosphere. Why should we pay for historic and no longer present emissions especially when the positive side of the balance sheet is examined whilst China is exempt?
tonyb

I never assume someone’s ducking because they haven’t responded. Obviously, I would have no idea for the lack of a response. To equate a lack of response with a duck would be “skeptical.” :-)

At any rate:

I will try to get my point across, again. You seem to be operating from some calculus that allows you to eliminate, from your moral equation of responsibility for harm caused, any future damages that might be caused by disproportionate emissions of CO2 from the citizens from certain countries (it would seem to me that per capita emission rates is the more meaningful metric here rather than absolute rates, although absolute rates is also important). In theory, future harms will be caused by all three of past, current, and future disproportionate emissions.

Now I know that you discount the possibility of any such harms occurring. But as I interpreted your earlier comments (please correct me if I’m wrong), you are dismissing, as a theoretical construct, any responsibility for such harms so caused in the future – not merely on the basis of the science of impact from CO2 emissions.

Now maybe we can’t get that hypothetical aspect of the discussion. Maybe there’s nowhere to go unless we first reach some common perspective of the potential for harm from CO2 emissions. But I would think that you could at least conceive that harms from CO2 emissions is at least somewhat uncertain? And you seem to be acknowledging the need to address that hypothetical when you reject the notion that countries that emit CO2 disproportionately would have any responsibility for future harms caused. So it seems to me you are being inconsistent.

This is that aspect of what I think you are ducking. You have dismissed, it seems to me, as I said, through some kind of moral calculus, that notion countries such as the US should have any obligations or financial responsibility for possible, future harms caused in other countries by virtue of our disproportionate rate of CO2 emissions. As near as I can tell, you have done so on the basis of considering past benefits accrued by those same emissions. So I am asking you to be more explicit about your moral calculus.

Let me give another example: A parent provides food and shelter for his child for 17 years. In the child’s 17 year, that parent begins abusing the child. Do you think that there is some equation by which you discount that ongoing abuse by virtue of past benefits accrued? If you think that analogy does not apply, please explain why. (Keep in mind, I am not considering CO2 emissions as an equivalent moral failure of deliberate child abuse. Perhaps it is the aspect of being deliberate that underlies your calculus?). Otherwise, there’s no point in you repeating that you question whether CO2 emissions will cause harm, or that you think that in the past people in countries that emit less CO2 have benefited from the technological developments made in those countries that emit more CO2. I will continue to see such responses as ducking.

My position is that AFTER extensive research it is VERY difficult to see that Co2 is causing the harm you believe.

Please tell me what harm I believe CO2 is causing. You seem to be quite certain about what I believe there, and from what you said, it seems that your confidence is misplaced. So, please elaborate on what you know to be what I believe.

Your deconstructions of information to the nth degree are really something that is best done in the to and fro of debate in a pub, as it is very difficult to follow all the nuances of them here. I have set out my position. There is nothing devious to it. You say;

“In theory, future harms will be caused by all three of past, current, and future disproportionate emissions.”

Look at the life cycle and log of co2. Our past emissions (UK) were small and are largely no longer present, our current emissions are trivial (2%) and our future emissions will be even more trivial as other economies grow

I wrote of the percentages emitted by various nations here, and then went to the trouble of asking 10 climate scientists what impact on temperature we could have if we (the West) all agreed legally binding and tight emission rules (which we in the UK have -how’s that going in the States?)

In the great balance sheet the things we (the UK) have contributed to humanity far outweigh our emissions ‘debits’. Other countries can argue their own contributions to improving the miserable lot of humans before the industrial revolution.

All this is highly hypothetical anyway, as we are not dealing with a credible scenario, as firstly the West will not be stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and secondly there are so many ifs and buts behind the proposals that it is quite impossible to see how any sort of equitable system could be devised and implemented.

In short, I am bemused by the preposterousness of it all and that could be why you think I am ducking.

I suggest you direct your attentions to questioning the morality and need for all this to the citizens of China and the States who were, are, and will, be the only Co2 game in town that matters.
tonyb

Your deconstructions of information to the nth degree are really something that is best done in the to and fro of debate in a pub, as it is very difficult to follow all the nuances of them here.

Sure. I get that.

The bottom line seems to be that we can’t get past your certainty that no future harms will result from CO2 emissions.

For what it’s worth, however, I will repeat that you seem to have misconstrued what my beliefs are. I merely think that future harm from CO2 is a possibility, and so therefore, it is entirely reasonable to discuss whether those who emit CO2 disproportionately have some responsible for the potential of harm caused to others.

Of course, no one is obliged to engage in that discussion, but it seems to me that you have been selective in your willingness to discuss that question.

“I merely think that future harm from CO2 is a possibility, and so therefore, it is entirely reasonable to discuss whether those who emit CO2 disproportionately have some responsible for the potential of harm caused to others. ”

Fair enough. I have explained the trivial amounts of co2 we (the UK) are responsible for that could possibly still be present or will be emitted in the future. We have a legally binding climate change Act and should not be the target of these proposals.

When all is said and done it is you in the States and China who need to take responsibility for ‘disproportionate ‘ co2 emissions whether it be due to a large economy or a large population.
tonyb

The “Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism” being discussed here is a boondoggle, generating a “Climate for Corruption”.

Read the lead post again and you’ll see why.

Tony B made a valid point that the “immense contributions” to the wealth and well-being of humanity in general resulting from the Industrial Revolution, have also benefitted the underdeveloped nations that are now holding their hand out for a handout from the industrialized world for “climate damages” they have ostensibly suffered as a result of the industrialization.

One simply needs to look at the published estimates of pre-industrial versus current GDP in the underdeveloped world to confirm that this is, indeed, the case.

How about the lower incidence of landfalling storms? Incidence of tornadoes in the US has actually decreased over the last half century. How about reductions in certain types of flu (and flu mutations) in many locations? How about looking at the actual – as opposed to the assumed based on models with little predictive value – impacts?

John P, it could go further. What if there are less tornadoes because of more droughts. Should the drought relief be reduced by the number of tornadoes there would have been? Tough but interesting question.

China is a major emitter. Over the lsdy 20 years It has contributed more co2 to the atmosphere than smaller countries such as Britain and Canada since the 19th century bearing in mind a good proportion of our historic emissions have left the atmosphere.

So surely they should be paying reparations or has a date been set as to when our climate ‘crimes’ are supposed to have been committed?

Tonyb, unless it is a climate benefit, it doesn’t figure. The US has already been paid for anything else I can think of. The fact that their profits were partly gained by low-priced fossil fuels is what is being corrected, because the real price isn’t as low as it first appeared.
Should countries that are making money off the warmed climate pay the US? Interesting. How about if the UK heating bills reduced from what they would have been due to warming, should that go to the fossil-fuel burners as part compensation for their outlay? Or maybe we can consider farmers in northern countries with longer growing season, should they pay the difference into the fund? These are the questions raised to me by your question.

Tonyb, I don’t know what they proposed. Perhaps I assumed reparations were backdated, because that is the usual meaning of the term: payment for past misdeeds. As a proportion of the 500 Gt C emitted so far, China would be somewhat lower than the US and just starting to gain, but a fair reparation should be based on emissions per country to date and going forwards. Like I said, the US is not going to allow this method of accounting, anyway, so it is moot.

The uncertainty in the emissions term is 1.5-3.3 larger then the uncertainty in the atmospheric accumulation term (marland 2008)

Using an independent calculation Marland found the difference in the methods in the US of calculated emissions was 0.9%.The difference ( the absolute value) being larger then the total emissions of 147 of the 195 countries surveyed.

The USentire developed world, including those nations that are now developing (China, India, Brazil, etc.) gained a lot of GDP plus increased quality of life and longer average life expectancyfrom its [fossil fuel] usage.

Let’s start off by attributing 50% of the increase in total world GDP since 1750 (adjusted for inflation, of course) to the availability of a reliable source of energy (based on low-cost fossil fuels).

Let’s say that 50% of this can be attributed to reliable, low-cost energy – let’s say $35 trillion.

So humanity has, indeed, “gained a lot of GDP” from fossil fuel usage.

Of course, population also grew: from 791 million to 7 billion, so the per capita increase in GDP (standard of living, quality of life, etc.) was only 63 times (6300%).

The same is true to a lesser extent for the underdeveloped nations. An example (African continent):

In 1750 the GDP (1990 US$) was estimated (Wiki) to be around $26 billion

In 2010 (also 1990 US$) it was $1,600 billion ($1.6 trillion), or an increase of over 60 times.

At the same time, the African population increased from an estimated 106 million to 1.02 billion (roughly 10 times), so the per capita GDP increased 6-fold.

I would argue that at least half of this increase in standard of living came from fossil fuels, particularly in those African nations that had ready access to these resources.

The challenge for those nations, which are still stuck in abject poverty, is to pull themselves up by developing their economies.

The ready access to a reliable source of energy from low-cost fossil fuels will arguably be a major part of this development, as it was in the case of the already developed world.

That’s the way these nations can pull their populations out of poverty (as China and India are now doing) – not by handouts from the industrial nations as supposed reparations for postulated past climate sins.

manacker, the whole thing comes down to net cost which is cost minus benefit. Some estimates say that is about one year of global GDP by the end of the century ($80 trillion). If that cost is caused by 5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted, the cost would be $40 per tonne. Paying for the cost in proportion to the causative agent makes the best sense. I realize predicting damage is difficult, but there will be some significant amount if you also include adaptation and mitigation measures that are supposed to prevent damage and have a cost too.

Estimating the postulated “damage” from AGW suffered by underdeveloped third-world nations which can be directly attributed to CO2 emission of the developed world is a daunting task – in fact, it is not possible.

Estimating the benefit that the entire world has enjoyed as a result of the availability of low cost energy based on fossil fuels is somewhat easier.

Ragnaar, that is why it is easy to tax the so-called benefits, which I would call proportional to carbon usage, to pay for the costs, if you want to put it that way. There are costs, and it is real money, unlike these benefits that people want to throw in. If we had real-money benefits floating around to use, problem solved. I am not sure what these people are proposing as a cash supply.

Subject to many assumptions and unknowns. Confined to the United States, such a tax would put us at a relative disadvantage. An answer is a worldwide tax where all carbon users are taxed. How the poorer countries might receive this idea? Higher energy prices. A sacrifice.

The graph mentions constrained price. Which I think mean there is not the political will to pay more. Interesting result of the graph is the diminishing returns. Beginning minor changes have the biggest impact on the triangles area, but that may mean nothing as the MSC slope is assumed.

Ragnaar, I somewhat agree with that article. A low carbon tax like $10 per tonne is not painful when you work out the impact on fuel and energy prices, and raises a lot of revenue that can help develop low-carbon technologies. I think it can also help with adaptation costs. This level of tax is not much of a deterrent to carbon use, but helps with costs.

Since there is no actual DATA that shows there is a problem and since there is no actual DATA that shows manmade CO2 caused any of the damage that has not happened, the fair share is zero, or, there is a balance due to be repaid.

I wonder what Africa would be like today if Germany had won WWII and hence been able to continue its genocide pograms to establish an Aryan master race. We lost nearly half a million American boys saving the world from that and God only knows how much fossil fuel we had to burn not only during the war but prior to entering in building up an industrial nation capable of winning a world war waged thousands of miles away across vast oceans.

I don’t think many Americans expect reparations for our great sacrifice but you ungrateful foreign and forgetful domestic assbags could at least not wage a campaign to penalize us for it.

The “real price” of fossil fuels is determined by the cost of extracting them and their supply/demand. This varies from location to location, and the world price of crude oil is currently being manipulated by a price-fixing cartel (OPEC), which controls most of the low-cost sources of crude oil.

You write that “the whole thing comes down to net cost which is cost minus benefit”.

Correct: Benefit to date is much easier to estimate than cost to date (see my earlier comment).

In fact, if one believes the estimates by Tol, the net impact to date has been beneficial for all of humanity (and will be until warming exceeds 2.2C to 2.5C above today’s temperature).

Then you add:

Some estimates say that is about one year of global GDP by the end of the century ($80 trillion). If that cost is caused by 5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted, the cost would be $40 per tonne.

This is all speculation about the future (“end of the century”). The total cumulated CO2 emitted by then may or may not be “5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide”, as you estimate. To date there have been 380 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels since 1750 (CDIAC); if we add an estimated 15% for cement production, deforestation, etc., then humanity has added a total of 437 GtC (that’s around 1.6 trillion tons CO2) since 1750.

If we add another 3.4 trillion tons by 2100, that would theoretically get us up to around 640 ppmv by then.

395 ppmv + 3.4 * (395-280) / 1.6 = 640 ppmv

Whether or not this would cause warming in excess of the 2.2C to 2.5C above today’s warming, which Tol estimates to be the “breakeven point”, is anyone’s guess. Latest ECS estimates (based on several independent observation-based studies) would suggest that the “breakeven” warming would not yet be reached by the end of the century, so there would be no net “cost” of $80 trillion, as you surmise.

And, in any case, most of the potentially harmful future “3.4 trillion tons CO2″ would not come from the USA, the EU, Japan and other already developed nations, but from the large developing nations, such as China, India, Brazil, etc. So there is absolutely no reason why the developed nations should pay these developing nations anything.

Right?

Max

manacker,. Some estimates say that is about one year of global GDP by the end of the century ($80 trillion). If that cost is caused by 5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted, the cost would be $40 per tonne. Paying for the cost in proportion to the causative agent makes the best sense. I realize predicting damage is difficult, but there will be some significant amount if you also include adaptation and mitigation measures that are supposed to prevent damage and have a cost too.

He rightly states that (even if the hare-brained notion of “climate loss and damages” made any sense at all – which it does not, of course), UK citizens would not “owe” the Chinese anything for their past carbon emissions, since these have been much smaller than those of China.

The entire concept of Warsaw “Loss and Damage” mechanism is illegitimate and should never have been created. That is because there is no anthropogenic global warming for which that “Loss and Damage” compensation is sought for. The Warsaw meeting never took up the science involved because they knew that there was no science to justify it. The meeting itself was set up to deal with an imaginary global warming cooked up by pseudo-scientific groups that control international climate policy. Let me summarize the truth. There is no warming now despite the fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest level ever. And the record shows that it has been like that for the last 15 years. In addition, there was also a no-warming period of 18 years in the eighties and nineties that was hidden from the public by a fake global warming, promulgated by official temperature repositories. These repositories included GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC. I discovered that while doing research for my book “What Warming?” I even put a warning about it in the preface when the book came out in 2010. It took these guys two years but eventually they did withdraw that fake warming last fall. This was done secretly and no explanation was offered. And it required cross-Atlantic cooperation to pull it off. We can now add these “liberated” 18 no-warming years to the current 15 years of no-warming and find that there has been no greenhouse warming at all for the last 35 years. Greenhouse warming, according to IPCC “experts” is the cause of the alleged anthropogenic global warming or AGW for which that compensation is sought. If there has been no greenhouse warming for 35 years the likelihood of any such warming prior to this when atmospheric carbon dioxide was a lot lower is essentially zero. Hence, we can say with full confidence that there is no anthropogenic greenhouse warming now and there never has been any. Claims to the contrary are pseudo-science, on a par with belief that the earth is the center of the universe or that an invisible substance called phlogiston transports heat. But despite clear lack of evidence the global warming pseudo-science has influenced scientific and political elites to spend trillions on “mitigating” a non-existent warming and to pass emission control laws injurious to the populations affected. All for nothing because there is just natural warming, controlled by forces of nature and not by Man.

The Warsaw meeting never took up the science involved because they knew that there was no science to justify it. The meeting itself was set up to deal with an imaginary global warming cooked up by pseudo-scientific groups that control international climate policy.

I suppose we now live in some sort of parallel universe where conspiracies don’t occur.

Not at all. I agree that conspiracies occur. However, I think that when they are alleged on the scale of the sort we see running throughout this thread, the burden of proof is extremely high.

I would apply the same thinking to theories about 9/11, or JFK’s assassination. I would apply the same thinking to accusations that Bush knew that Saddam had no WsMD and pursued his Iraq policy nonetheless.

The less acknowledgement of uncertainties the higher the burden of proof. The larger and more complex the conspiracy, the higher the burden of proof. The complete confidence about unknowable entities such as the motivation of other people, of millions of people, the higher the burden of proof.

I often hear deniers say that climate change is a part of some crazy UN plot to create a world government or redistribute wealth. I think Lewandowsky is on to something when he says deniers are more likely to embrace conspiracies.

In the blogosphere, you find all kinds of people making all kinds of extremist statements. We often see emotion-laden analysis that fails to account for uncertainties and that reflects tribalism and motivated reasoning.

What’s missing from Lew’s analysis is a quantification of significance.

Is the predilection for conspiratorial thinking in the “skept-o-sphere” any more prevalent than in the “real-o-sphere?” Is there something that we can understand about the prevalence of conspiratorial thinking that tells us anything of real importance? Does its presence tell us anything about causation? Does it necessarily tell us anything about the views on science that frequently accompany the conspiratorial analysis?

I think Lewandowsky is on to something when he says deniers are more likely to embrace conspiracies.

More likely than who? And were is the evidence, validated and quantified, related to prevalence?

“More likely than who? And were is the evidence, validated and quantified, related to prevalence?”

More likely than those who accept the science of AGW. The only conspiracy argument I hear made are that big energy companies are funding the so-called skeptics and therefore we can discredit their research and conclusions. But I don’t think this is irrational and because we have seen corporate funded science that was corrupt (e.g smoking). I admit my evidence is anecdotal and limited but I see the same conspiracies repeated over and over on sites like Yahoo and WUWT. And the involvement of the UN being one of the most prevalent. I am sure you have heard the same conspiracies floated as well.

So I would suggest that research into the area should continue and not be dismissed out of hand.

And I wondered if you had any other examples of conspiracy related thinking commonly engaged in by those who accept AGW?

Well, the oil-funded denier one is a pretty big one. Kind of on the same scale as the “One world government/eco-Nazi/Marxists intent on starving millions so they can destroy capitalism” conspiracy – in that it is so implausible and in direct contrast to easily available evidence. The assertion that “skepticism” is associate with political ideology and/or vested interests is, of course, rooted in validated evidence. The problems arise when causation is assumed to advance tribalism and self-victimization.

As for other conspiracy thinking? In a pure form, perhaps not (maybe some of our much beloved “skeptics” will have some input there), but I think that there is a general theme related to self-victimization that is a close kin to conspiratorial thinking. An example might be the accusations that Judith is a “denier.” While clearly Judith is an advocate for what she believes, the certainty that accompanies assumptions made about her motivations however, which are unknowable, is reflective of a conspiracy thinking-lite mindset, IMO. Such assertions might more accurately be described as “motivated reasoning” more than “conspiracy thinking,” but they are close cousins. Conspiracy thinking is at its root, a confusion of fact with opinion, and that is an attribute that largely defines motivated reasoning as well.

The accusations made about Judith are of a type that runs throughout the “real-o-sphere,” just as seen in the “skept-o-sphere.” I see little evidence of any disproportionality. What is interesting to me is that folks on both sides are fully convinced of some disproportionality despite a lack of any real evidence, and the fact that the evidence that we have shows universal influences of identity protection, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc.

But it is not irrational as I explained before. .It also happens to be true that a number of those having the minority opinion are funded by the industry. That increases the skepticism of the skeptics and their motives.I personally think of it like scientific experts in a trial. The defense may hire someone who comes to an entirely different conclusion on some aspect of a case. The job of the expert is to support their client.

You asked for examples of conspiracy theories posited by CAGW advocates. I suggested you google the words deniers and conspiracies.

Now, I will admit that I omitted to suggest that you then look at the results, but I thought that since you clearly own a computer and know how to use it, you would have figured that part out by yourself.

But, just for you:

1. Type the words “deniers” and “conspiracies” into the google search box.

2. Press the enter key.

3. Look at the results.

Since that was apparently too much work, or too complicated, here are a few of the results for you.

I don’t think it counts as a conspiracy theory if the AGW opponents are open about it. For example, US Republican politicians openly admit representing their fossil fuel interests. WUWT gets funds from the Kochs. That is not a conspiracy theory. We we need something more secretive and hidden to count as a conspiracy theory, but who needs one when these are the known facts? If big tobacco secretly supported some research that represented itself as neutral, that would be a conspiracy theory, but not if it was the tobacco labs own research.

Actually, what’s missing from Lewandowsky’s analysis is a basic understanding of statistics. His interpretation of his correlation scores is bogus as he didn’t bother to check if the linear relationship the represent is consistent along the scales. Multiple people have, and they all found it isn’t.

In other words, Lewandowsky drew conclusions about skeptics using data that wasn’t from skeptics. It’s roughly equivalent to concluding republicans are conspiracy theorists because democrats reject conspiracies like the moon landing being a hoax.

Nor is it “conspiratorial” when climate scientists are funded by politicians who want them to feed them scare stories so they can impose a tax on carbon – if these scientists clearly state that this is the case.

In fact, I do not believe that there are any “conspiracies” on either side – just a collusion of interests of various groups in a multi-billion dollar big business.

“While clearly Judith is an advocate for what she believes, the certainty that accompanies assumptions made about her motivations however, which are unknowable, is reflective of a conspiracy thinking-lite mindset”

The type of conspiracy thinking I am referring to would involve a large group of people working together to achieve a purpose like promoting AGW even though they know it is false.

manacker, no, there is a conspiracy theory on the denialist side that the science teaching and publication process is rigged for a desired result, and not just the outcome of decades of objective academic research into factors that can cause and have in the past caused climate change and that control the current and future climate, which quantify what we see as outlined by the IPCC reports. So far, the “skeptics” have put up flimsy and laughable theories as alternatives that they think the academic community should adopt instead and dump the whole of AGW. The academics don’t adopt these because they are non-starters, but the conspiracy theory explains that they are all part of this global conspiracy and have to fall in line, or else, even when there are obvious counterexamples within the community who do quite well out of skepticism, but haven’t so far got their act together. That is it in a nutshell.

“when climate scientists are funded by politicians who want them to feed them scare stories so they can impose a tax on carbon ”

I don’t believe politicians want scary stories for some agenda. I think they want to solve problems and not make up ones so they can solve them. I particularly don’t see how you can read their minds and know what motivates them. I want to see proof of your accusations not your unsupported opinion.

I’m not sure what that means. I don’t think there are conspiracies. Not in the least. My point is that people who are so often commenting about conspiracies, as we see constantly throughout the “skept-o-sphere” should recognize that their skepticism is selective – as evidenced by their conspiracy ideation.

I am rationally skeptical of the CAGW premise as specifically outlined by IPCC in its AER4 and AR5 reports.

Does that make me part of the “denialist side” in your opinion?

If so, I can assure you that I do not believe in any sort of “conspiracy” – simply a collusion of interests of several powerful independent groups – such as:

– politicians seeking the power to regulate energy and added revenues from new taxes on carbon
– industrialists seeking a piece of the taxpayer funded subsidy pie
– green lobby groups seeking more power and influence
– self appointed “saviors of the planet” hoping to gain influence and profit from the scare
– climate scientists seeking government funding
– a sensationalist media seeking potential doomsday scare stories to boost ratings/circulation

And now (this post):
– third-world nations (and their rulers) seeking a “climate handout” from the wealthier nations

CAGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business (with the potential of becoming a multi-trillion dollar big business if a carbon tax is implemented).

So it’s NOT a “conspiracy”.

It’s simply a case of “follow the money trail”.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Max

PS I also do not believe that there is a “conspiracy” on the anti CAGW side. Again, it is a case of individuals and independent groups acting in what they perceive to be their own best long-term interests.

” politicians seeking the power to regulate energy and added revenues from new taxes on carbon
– industrialists seeking a piece of the taxpayer funded subsidy pie
– green lobby groups seeking more power and influence
– self appointed “saviors of the planet” hoping to gain influence and profit from the scare
– climate scientists seeking government funding
– a sensationalist media seeking potential doomsday scare stories to boost ratings/circulation”

The key part and what makes it a true conspiracy, is all these participants supposedly know AGW is a fraud and so nothing needs to be done about it. That’s the secret that is being withheld from the public by the “conspirators.” That is the argument the true deniers are making even if they won’t characterize it that way.

“Let us again be clear that we are witnessing ever more frequent, extreme weather events and the poor and vulnerable are paying the price” (said Christiana Figueres, head of the UN climate change secretariat)

Let us again be clear. The first part of her proposition is a bouncing lie, the second one is a truism. Therefore the solution is to help the poor to get competent &. incorruptible governments, proper education and economic development via ample cheap energy. The rich would benefit greatly from the very same remedies as well.

Developed countries have agreed to prepare statements once every two years on how they are planning to scale up climate finance to deliver $100bn per year by 2020.

That’s funny. With current financial policy by the year 2020 $100bn would buy you a box of matches, best case.

The PURPOSE of the Warsaw Whatever is to provide cover for the long-planned ‘International Institute for Crime, Graft, and Corruption That is Pretending to Save the Planet’.

Although there is zero chance that any action taken on the recommendation of the Warsaw Debacle will actually have a measurable impact on the climate, you can bet that there will be lots of measurable increase in wealth and political power accrue to those associated with it, and a commensurate loss of wealth and freedom among those of us unfortunate naifs from whom the wealth and freedom are extracted.

I would say, based on the announced intention by the Obamunists last week to double down on their planet saving rules, regulations, and taxes, that the conference is pretty sure to be wildly successful. In meeting its actual objectives. The climate, as usual, will ignore it.

> I would say, based on the announced intention by the Obamunists last week to double down on their planet saving rules, regulations, and taxes, that the conference is pretty sure to be wildly successful.

Speaking of which:

Paul denied allegations from some liberal pundits and a few lawmakers that the explosive language and imagery used by conservatives figureheads such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, were catalyzing factors in the massacre in Arizona that took the lives of 6 bystanders and left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition.

MORGAN: As — as a principle, do you think it’s wise for any politician, anyone in the world, not just America, to use imagery like crosshairs? To use the language of the gun in –in that kind of way?

RICE: Well, the fact is that our politics is pretty rough. It is. I — I certainly —

MORGAN: But should it — should it be that rough?

RICE: — experienced it myself. Our politics has been rough for a long time. It didn’t start two years ago. Our politics has been rough for a long time.

And frankly, people across the whole spectrum use colorful and sometimes language that might be considered incendiary.

MORGAN: But your administration was a past master in that kind of language. I mean, it’s been pretty — pretty rough.

RICE: Well, I — well, we used pretty rough language for the people who committed the act of war against us on September 11th and I have no regrets for using very tough language about them. But all of that —

MORGAN: What about towards — what about towards opponents?

RICE: Well, let me just say — all of that said, I would like to see the politics cool down. I would like to see it — us cool off as a country. I’d like us all to be more careful what we say about one another and give politicians time to solve some of these very difficult issues that we face.

[…]

MORGAN: How’s President Obama doing, do you think?

RICE: Well, I’m very fond of the president personally. I knew him when he was a senator in — and when I was Secretary, he was on Senate Foreign Relations, so I got to know him.

MORGAN: You were a Democrat.

RICE: I was for —

MORGAN: Then you became a Republican.

RICE: I was — I was a — I was a Democrat who voted for Jimmy Carter.

MORGAN: Yes. You flirted on both sides of this divide. I mean, could you be tempted to vote —

RICE: Well I was — I — I — let’s — it was 1976 when I was a Democrat, so let’s not extend that too far.

MORGAN: But could you have been tempted, do you think, in other circumstances, to vote for President Obama?

RICE: Well, I think that he is a fine person and he’s doing his best for this country and I was personally quite gratified that America elected a black president. And I went to the State Department press room that morning to say how — what it said about our country. It said that our country is what it claims to be. And so, all of that was great.

I’m a committed Republican. I believe very strongly in individual liberty. I tend not to think much in terms of group politics. I really am a kind of small government person and I’m most certainly a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense.

But I think there’s more commonality in the middle of our country than there might —

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Pam Renshaw had just crashed her four-wheeler into a bonfire in rural Folkston, Georgia, and her skin was getting seared in the flames. Her boyfriend, Billy Chavis, pulled her away and struggled to dial 911 before driving her to the nearest place he could think of for medical attention: an ambulance station more than 20 miles away.

The local public hospital, nine miles from the crash, had closed six weeks earlier because of budget shortfalls resulting from the Affordable Care Act and Georgia’s decision not to expand Medicaid. The ambulances Chavis sought were taking other patients to the next closest hospital. It took two hours before Renshaw, in pain from second- and third-degree burns on almost half her body, was flown to a hospital in Florida.

Those damn bonfires in Georgia. There’s so many of them you can’t swing a drunk woman without rolling her four-wheel drive SUV into one. Surely Willard you posted that as a warning to reduce the number of drunk women driving SUVs around bonfires, right? Or what exactly was your point?

“Which would suit me fine, as long as that includes all reactionary claptraps.”

Willard, knowing it’s wrong, isn’t the type to lead by example. What a shocker. That’s why we had to rescue the French from the Germans. Twice. That may have been a mistake on our part under the rubric “‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Considering that the Americans, Australians, Canadians, Japanese and most likely the British, are not about to approve any funding of this new mechanism, there is no loss. And anyone expecting China, Brazil or India to contribute is high on something.

The mechanism for loss and damage should be to build power generation plants using affordable and abundant energy sources that would be able to generate reliable energy to consumers precisely when the want and need it. Those power plants could then be used to do simple things like provide clean drinking water, HVAC, and just maybe, spur economic growth. In today’s world, that means fossil fuels, even the most evil of all, coal.

“So why this charade of spending all this money on something that won’t work and may potentially make the problem worse?”

This is one of the more naive comments I have seen in a while.

Spending money is power. The UN, and the vast majority of governments that fund it, care about nothing so much as power.

In the US we had Stimulus I and II, Cash for Clunkers, the Bank Bailouts, the Auto Company Bailouts and the gift that keeps on giving, the “green energy” boondoggle industry.

The third world just wants in on the massive green gravy train western progressives have built for themselves and their crony capitalist supporters. Their real problem is that western progressives are busy bailing each other out right now, and aren’t going to risk their own power and jobs for the limited value of extending their reach into moribund economies like Bangladesh.

What the third world kleptocratic leaders have to figure out is how to siphon wealth away from western taxpayers in a way that increases the power of western progressive leaders. If they ever figure that out, the trough will open wide and trillions will flow.

There is nothing more irrelevant to the climate catastrophe funding debate, than climate.

“I realize divorcing Loss and Damage from AGW would be an enormous challenge.” Particularly if the purpose of the Rio conference was to find ways to transfer money from rich to poor, with alleged global warming as an excuse.

“In June 1992, the first UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro and adopted an agenda for environment and development in the 21st Century. Agenda 21: A Programme of Action for Sustainable Development contains the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which recognizes each nation’s right to pursue social and economic progress and assigned to States the responsibility of adopting a model of sustainable development; and, the Statement of Forest Principles. Agreements were also reached on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNCED for the first time mobilized the Major Groups and legitimized their participation in the sustainable development process. This participation has remained a constant until today. For the first time also, the lifestyle of the current civilization was addressed in Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration. The urgency of a deep change in consumption and production patterns was expressly and broadly acknowledged by State leaders. Agenda 21 further reaffirmed that sustainable development was delimited by the integration of the economic, social and environmental pillars.

“The spirit of the conference was captured by the expression “Harmony with Nature”, brought into the fore with the first principle of the Rio Declaration: “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”.” – See more at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/history.html#sthash.GU6nU2qy.dpuf

“The urgency of a deep change in consumption and production patterns …” Que? Well, we’ve had deep shifts in both, e.g. consumption towards electronic gadgets and production to China et al. Mission accomplished? Time to go to bed?

At first, I thought she found the 100 billion request unbelievable, until she discovered shortly later that was 100 billion/year. This is not going to happen, there might be some appearance of doing so by moving existing numbers around.

“I realize divorcing Loss and Damage from AGW would be an enormous challenge, but it might make this more palatable to some of the developed countries and provide something more useful to the developing countries. ”

If you divorce it from AGW, then you potentially increase the obligation of industrialized nations to the poorer nations. They need to be able to separate natural factors like subsidence from SLR due to AGW to accurately assess how much aid to give to these nations.

Herman, my post today at DT online refers: “unsafe levels” of global temperatures: I have seen no convincing evidence that potential rises – with the best guesstimates now being about 1.5C – would be harmful. Better to use our resources to develop our capacity to deal with whatever befalls in the future than to harm our economies to make a perhaps miniscule change in a non-threatening temperature rise.

Maybe the “developing world” needs to figure out why they are still “developing”. I can think of an infinite number of things to support in lieu of this proposal. The last thing the rest of the world should contribute is money to corrupt governments. If this goes through the price of real estate in Manhattan and London will benefit the most. The WWF CEO’s salary is now close to 500k a year mainly because of the AGW monetary conduit. Follow the money around and you will find the alarmists are best compensated.

John, “The last thing the rest of the world should contribute is money to corrupt governments. ”

That is like a tradition. Besides, one guys “corruption” is another guys normal. What you do is just change the budget terminology from foreign aid to reparations then reduce the outlay. They catch on after a while.

Unlike the planet’s climate, the feedback mechanism for reparations is very clear. The third world political class is going to blow up the gravy train for the AGW climate elites unless they get paid soon. The prostitutes finally want to get paid.

John, “The prostitutes finally want to get paid.” Sure they do. China has built coal plants like crazy many with state of the art scrubbers and not used the scrubbers to add to the “urgency” They have that nice brown Asian cloud just waiting for someone to pay for them to reduce particulates.

That would be a political ploy that should backfire provided the warm and fuzzies don’t get their bleeding heart way. So you settle on some ridiculously low reparations amount so they save some face and you save money.

I recall my grandchild and I at the sandy shore building a sand castle, not inland and protected from the waves, but she ( 5 years old) insisted on a castle of sand on the shore, subjected to the to-and-fro waves washing barriers and eventually the castle out to sea. “Why build somewhere where you know it will wash away?” says I. “Yes it will wash away and we will build another castle again tomorrow” says she.

A fruitless endeavor to build a sand castle at the seashore. Her purpose was to do it all over again with Grandpa. For her, it is the process and relationship that matters.

What is the purpose and relationship of the COP Loss and Damage Fund? Judith Curry suggests both are related to “corruption” which I interpret as funneling other’s (developed country’s) monies to self and extended family.Free malaria drugs stolen and sold on the private market or diverted mosquito sleeping nets provided by charities when passed through government hands, are lost track of and enrich the chiefs, shaman and well place ministers of the undeveloped countries’

Judith Curry a number of years ago mentioned “tribalism” in the climate science culture. Tribalism is by and large why the world is such a tinderbox in the “under-developed” world. Fighting to control the distribution of resources to one’s self and immediate family.

Is Grandpa being seduced into building another sand castle at the sea shore? This Grandpa has his eyes wide open because he knows the request’s purpose and his relationship. Grandpa does it gladly.

As usual most of the discussion is centered around polemics. This is just one more boondoggle being foisted upon the developed economies for the wrong reason. The cause of global warming, melting glaciers , and rising sea levels is much more likely the heat emissions from our energy use (both fossil and nuclear) than the CO2 by-product. Another boondoggle is CCS, carbon capture and storage. It will require the capture and storage of 18,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 to reduce its atmospheric concentration by one part per million. At what cost and for what benefit? There is no other answer but to replace fossil and nuclear with energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc., that add no additional heat.
Money for reparations would be better spent on replacing fossil and nuclear with the heat-neutral energy resources.

I think the money would be better spent on efficient use of fossil fuels. For example, why use natural gas to make corn ethanol when you can have a natural gas fleet and eliminate the conversion losses. The Google driverless cars can be used very creatively to combine trips to reduce emissions. Tax incentives could allow white collar workers to work from home a couple days a week. Back of the envelope, I figure 70% of transportation fuel can be conserved with new technology if we tried. The energy footprint of the new NSA data center is enough to power to 60,000 homes, if I were the UN I would have that sonabitch shutdown tomorrow.

As well as the obvious risks of countries gaming the fund, and of the corrupt elites siphoning off the money, there is a further dimension of risk.

That is, that even if at least some of the money is spent on worthwhile projects (and that’s a big if), it simply lets those governments off the hook for dealing with the issues themselves. Some might say that it will free up money to be spent on other important priorities like health and education, but the history of foreign aid indicates that what in fact happens is that it frees up money to be misappropriated by the ruling elite.

In almost every case, governance problems are at the root of ongoing poverty in these countries. Giving them free money just perpetuates the problem.

It’s nice to see the Discovery Channel now promoting shows glorifying the shooting, snaring, butchering and trapping of animals after spending it’s first 30 years in existence making two successive generations feel guilty about exploiting natural resources.

So long as the models sponsored by the UNFCCC and the IPCC continue to exaggerate global temperature. this push for enormous transfers of wealth from so-called developed nations will continue. None of these models correctly simulate the on/off nature of climate change and until they do, meetings like the Warsaw one should be suspended.

But getting the IPCC to admit the failure of its models in the shape of 15 y3ars of overwhelming evidence is a problem best solved by someone. producing a better model

The Green Climate Fund [ trustee ; World Bank ] is probably a good starting point for getting a handle on the always passive corruption followed almost inevitably by active corruption that is associated with all such supposedly public, do gooder mega money projects that use OPM.

The administrators of these mega money public funds then believe it tis their prerogative to splurge the public money’s, that OPM on their own personal job comfort , liberally interpreted of course, plus jobs for the boys and gals, plus throw some generous amounts to the supporters through some back door deals, pay off a few media to give them lots of favourable publicity, make sure some big brown envelopes are passed under the table to some political advisers at some fancy restaurants and before you know it is all gone leading to piteous cries that the donors have been far too lax in ensuring sufficient funding wasn’t made available for the desperate purposes at hand.
[ OPM= Other Peoples Money ]

As of June 30, 2013, the total amount of pledges and contributions to the GCF Trust Fund amounted to USDeq. 9 million. Of this amount, ten contributors have deposited a total amount of USDeq. 7.55 million in the GCF Trust Fund.

Funding Decisions:
As of June 30, 2013, the GCF Board had approved funding from the GCF Trust Fund totaling USD 8.43 million, in respect of administrative budgets of the GCF to support the activities of the GCF Board, interim secretariat and interim trustee from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013; provided that funds would be committed and transferred by the interim trustee only to the extent that cash was available in the GCF Trust Fund.

As of June 30, 2013, there were no funds available to support additional GCF Board funding decisions.

Goldman Sachs has set aside $15.3bn (£9.5bn) to pay its staff in 2010 – an average of $430,000 each – in a move that re-ignites the controversy over City pay and bonuses at a time when youth unemployment is hitting record highs in the UK.

Hi John,
Maybe they didn’t need to buy the guy twice?
:)
I’m sure Willard disagrees. They need to keep buying and buying. “That’s a nice little company you got there, shame if something were to happen to it.”

Exactly stefan: CO2 driven CAGW is a prime example of the modern day version of ‘The Golden Rule': The guy who makes the rules gets the gold.

And the Progressive_Politician/Climate_Scientist/Environmentalist complex is making sure that there will be lots of rules (gotta control/tax that ‘carbon signature’, don’t you know) and that it will be making them. The gold has followed and will continue to do so.

“…75% of Bangladesh is less than 10m above sea level and 80% is flood plain…”
“In the 19th century, six major floods were recorded in 1842, 1858, 1871, 1875, 1885 and 1892. Eighteen major floods occurred in the 20th century. Those of 1987, 1988 and 1951 were of catastrophic consequence. More recent floods include 2004 and 2010.”

“I realize divorcing Loss and Damage from AGW would be an enormous challenge, but it might make this more palatable to some of the developed countries and provide something more useful to the developing countries. ”

Not too hard, just a policy that prefers aid to countries which not in the Cabal of Corruption.
We have to have priorities- chances are the countries of Cabal of Corruption are more of a lost cause.

China and India’s success in weakening the latest global warming agreement created friction with other developing nations that are seeking to step up the fight against climate change.

The two countries insisted on single-word changes for a deal at a United Nations conference involving 190 nations on Nov. 23. Instead of making “commitments” to roll back fossil fuel emissions, they signed up for “contributions,” a formulation that allows more flexibility in their action.
Enlarge image Power Station in Tianjin

Steam rises from a chimney at the Junliangcheng power station in Tianjin. Photographer: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg
Enlarge image Public Bus in New Delhi

Smoke comes out of a public bus waiting at a traffic light in New Delhi. Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg

Those last-minute revisions at a meeting that ran overtime by almost 30 hours underscored the reluctance of China and India to join in the sort of emissions cuts that the European Union is making. It puts the two largest developing nations at odds with their smaller brethren, especially island states and Bangladesh that are the most threatened by rising temperatures.

“There’s all sorts of divisions emerging that weren’t there before,” Alden Meyer, who has been watching the talks for two decades at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview. “If you’re a small island nation, you don’t care if it’s emissions from the U.S. or China causing your country to go under water. You want action.”

Reminds me of what I have seen in the break up of partnerships and those very public and very messy divorces.
When there’s money to be divide up just stand well back and watch the fur fly.
Particularly after they open the safe and find out that those mean old sods who suposedly had all that dosh tucked away had got in before them and spent the lot.
Sadly, those poor grand kids are now going to have to earn a living and find their own way through life without all that dosh from those rich uncles.

Thanks for mentionning the elephant in the room that everybody missed.
Future potential damages by all kind of natural disasters have at least doubled since 1980 because the population doubled.
It actually increased by at least one order of magnitude since the industrial revolution (and CO2 emissions) started.

There is not a single person, statet or company outside of Bangladesh that is responsible for this potentially catastrophic evolution.

One can actually wonder where all these massive population increases come from and who will pay for it when something goes wrong as it surely will.

Talking about UN, is talking about corruption. If anyone do not see this is because is blind. What it disappoints me is that most of this world’s state of corruption relies in “scientific” claims not based in actual science:

it is just a science invented by UN, in order to generate political action lead by the UN.
I guess that an hypothetical trial, should include (in addition to: Gumar Myhre (CICERO), Drew Shindell (NASA), Gregory Flato (Env. Can.), Jochem Marotzke (MPI Met.), Matthew Collins (U. Exeter), Reto Knutti (ETH Zurich) and all IPCC members that “supervise” the 6 cited above) Christiana Figueres and all her supervisors in the UN.

Exactly, a climate for corruption, the UN.
Maurice Strong being an upstanding member.
An amazing aspect of our era, that the voluntarily nonproductive, will command the actions of the formerly productive, whist holding gorgeous meeting, where they will discuss how they will share, the not produced wealth.
This will end with the funding, other peoples money is running out at the national level,taxpayer patience is run out.
The UN theatre has run this show too long.

Each time there is a natural disaster of any kind, developed countries pull together aid packages to assist. This might include expertise, military manpower, medics, food packages, blankets, temporary housing etc. They package it up and ship it at their own expense to countries who’s governments have not prepared in any way for the probable risks from natural disaster.

The aid suppliers never ask awkward questions like; why did you have so many poor people living in slums in disaster prone areas whilst your leaders live in palaces? or how is it that your military are only good at suppressing the masses and have no training whatsoever in disaster relief? They simply get on with bringing relief to those that really need it.

On top of this, there are the countless millions that are given in charity funding each year so that relief can be directed to those who need it.

I am assuming that this constant flow of aid was ignored in the calculations.

To be honest, I know that there are some poor countries that are really struggling and have good leadership. However, for the most part, I couldn’t think of a better way of wasting money than to give it to some of these governments and why on Earth would we ever give it to the UN? So that they can form yet another committee filled with the pampered elite and celebrities?

To my way of thinking the only sensible form of aid is one that ensures that every last cent gets to the people who really need it and I don’t see how that would happen with so many parasites along the way.

Kofi Annan in the New York Times today: “If governments are unwilling to lead when leadership is required, people must. We need a global grass-roots movement that tackles climate change and its fallout.” Followed by a list of projects.

But, wait, one paragraph later we have “Despite these encouraging initiatives, citizens need to press their governments to come up with ambitious sustainable solutions, not just makeshift ones.”

I’m not sure where to turn; first he empowers all us little folk to make a real difference. Then he puts us right back where we started, in the hands of those cowardly governments who refuse to lead us out of doom. Never mind, I guess we’ll just have to go back to the UN for another handout.

In the countries that the Warsaw Loss and Damage Gang (WLDG) are supposed to be helping (for a nominal ‘handling fee’, of course) the governments are for the most part comprised of murderous thugs with guns; the more murderous the thugs, the more abject the poverty of the innocent bystanders (citizens) who are unlucky enough to live there.

Who influences government? In the helpee countries, other murderous thugs with guns or outsiders (WLDG and similar scam artists) with sackfulls of OPM. The outsiders don’t actually influence the government thugs, but the thugs use the OPM to entertain the outsiders in the manner to which they have become accustomed, while pretending to be influenced, while the OPM bearing outsiders pretend to the OP who supplied the M (us) that influence was done, while enjoying the entertainment. And becoming ever more accustomed to their lifestyle.

In nations with a democratic form of government these individuals are selected by the voting public to ostensibly represent them and their interests..

In large bureaucracies, many are appointees of the ones who were directly elected. These individuals are no longer directly accountable to the voting public and, therefore, do not always represent their interests.

In most of the underdeveloped world, the ruling class is simply the strongest bunch of thugs or dictators who exercise totalitarian rule.

These individuals represent their own interests and not those of their populations.

Too much mixing up of sea level rise and river level rise. Polders/barriers and berms cannot possibly do the former. The solution is simple – higher barriers. Any statement to the contrary is balderdash. The main problem in Bangladesh is not even the average rise anyway, In fact the land is very fertile because of it – it’s the frequent sudden surges that cause all the danger and that is absolutely nothing to do with any supposed climate change. Not that there is any in Bangladesh anyway as looking at the data would tell anyone.

Surely noone seriously thinks there is even a shred of sincerity in any of this ?
The driving concept is just robbing the rich to pay the poor. And for those who buy into ideology, ‘reasons’ are just bourgeois frippery.

Gail – That’s incorrect, the concept is to rob the developed middle class to pay to the rich in developing countries (who then buy assets in NY and London). The poor will get some pamphlets and duck and cover drills.

Climatists promised warming and it didn’t happen. Their Line-of-the-Day method of propaganda is all petered out: there are only so many ways to come with a non-problem in a way that frightens people. We’re no longer frightened. We’ve all heard it before already—that Marxism is the only hope and that Americanism can only lead to Catastrophic, Calamitous Runaway Global Warming and Extreme Climate Change Weather Disasters that Kills All Life. Leftist bull! Environmentalists are more interested in bilking little old lady-wealthy surviving spouses of evil capitalists out of millions in donations to save polar bears and stopping the seas from from rising than in actually making serious and meaningful contributions to humanity and it is costing us more than jobs. They’ve set our houses afire.

AGW science is simply to pray for catastrophe and point. The only community-wide consensusis is transitioning from blamin’ Bush and WalMart to punishin’ all free enterprise workers as if everything they do is no bettern’ the business of makin’, sellin’ and consumin’ alcohol and tobacco in bars and casinos, and as if taxing capitalism is a legitimate state objective to limit the necesssary evil of business for the good of all the sinners who engage in it.

From Bloomberg today:
“It [last minute revisions to the Warsaw Shakedown] puts the two largest developing nations [India & China] at odds with their smaller brethren, especially island states and Bangladesh….” With commentary from a watchful observer, “’There’s [sic] all sorts of divisions emerging that weren’t there before,’ Alden Meyer, who has been watching the talks for two decades at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview.”

Here’s a scenario for fun & games in the next few years. We dump a whole pile of OPM into a gathering of the WLDG [thanks, Bob!] and watch them tear each other to shreds divvying up the booty. I see that COP 22 (2016) is still looking for a venue, so we could suggest the Colosseum in Rome!

“Earlier in the week around 800 people representing civil society groups, quit the summit, walking out in a mass protest at the reduced ambition from some countries and the Polish government’s decision to host a coal industry conference in parallel with COP 19.”

The one thing uniting all neoreactionaries is a critique of modernity that centers on opposition to democracy in all its forms.

Many are former libertarians who decided that freedom and democracy were incompatible.

“Demotist systems, that is, systems ruled by the ‘People,’ such as Democracy and Communism, are predictably less financially stable than aristocratic systems,” Anissimov writes. “On average, they undergo more recessions and hold more debt. They are more susceptible to market crashes. They waste more resources. Each dollar goes further towards improving standard of living for the average person in an aristocratic system than in a Democratic one.”

Neoreactionaries propose that countries should be small — city states, really — and that all they should compete for citizens. “If residents don’t like their government [or their inexorably rising sea-level], they can and should move!”

Is this the future of America’s Republican (Tea)Party? Does knowledge-and-control of carbon-driven sea-level rise properly belong not to ordinary citizens and their grandchildren, but instead to hyper-wealthy corporations and Kings?

There are bad policies being advocated by members of all political parties. Stuipd individuals overly generalize the actions of individual members of a political party to represent the entire organization.

Wow. That’s a first. Greece described as “conservative.” That would be the Greece that’s broke and hunting for German bailouts to pay for runaway government spending.
“Is this the future of America’s Republican (Tea) Party?”
No, but it is the present for most of Progressive’s enclaves- Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Detroit.
Once socialism comprehensively wrecks an economy, it’s amazing what happens to the politics. But there will always be folks like Fan on hand to blame it on “conservatives.”
Speaking of wrecks- have they started addressing the unelected “president” of the EU as “your highness” yet, or is it on the docket of reforms?
And about the Comandante of the UN: once this “framework” is established, do we peons get any say in how much of our money is handed out? Or is accountability in an international institutions too quaint to be taken seriously any longer?

“I am not a historian or a statistician. Nonetheless I had been skimming Climate Audit for a couple of years and knew enough to write, in January 2009, ‘Michael Mann should be in prison.’ I continue to enthusiastically endorse this view.”

Forsooth, perchance ye Climate Etc denialists may like this new political animal called “royalism/neo-reactionism”!

I do not know where you find this stuff. If you want me to read beyond the silly first few lines you had better do a précis of no more than fifty words of which no more than five should be ‘silly.’
Tonyb

“Have you ever owned your own business? I know from your posts that you were a government worker and a corporate employee.”

Yes to all three if you count United States Marine as a government employee – some only count civil service not military service but my paychecks came direct from the United States Treasury so I’m counting it.

For all we know Earth is headed into another ice age and if so polar bears will be dancing on the graves of all humanity. “When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools… This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere … was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age.” (Tim Patterson)

Although not a developing nation, in New Orleans, prior to Katrina, money intended for levee repair may not have been wisely spent. :)

All three engineering consultants who were selected by the Orleans board to design the levees contributed to the political campaigns of officials with sway over the board….

“No one was in charge,” said Raymond Seed, a UC Berkeley engineering professor leading a National Science Foundation inquiry. Seed’s team has heard allegations that piles were deliberately shortchanged. The Justice Department is investigating…….

It’s a plum job,” Harvey recalled. “Your connection with the governor is close. You have 300 employees, lots of contracts.”

When Edwards pushed for state gambling — a position that led to his federal corruption conviction in 2001 — Harvey wooed the Bally’s gambling empire to locate a casino boat at a dock owned by the levee board……..

When Katrina’s swells blew out huge chunks of 17th Street’s cement wall on the morning of Aug. 30, Harvey was prepared for disaster.

Years of interagency spats with the corps and his own engineers had left him a skeptic. He bought an inflatable rubber boat and stored it in the attic of his house near the 17th Street levee.

When floodwaters rose, Harvey dragged down his boat and began rescuing neighbors. “Nobody wanted to go into a starvation mode and pay for real protection in the halls of Congress,” he said afterward…..

From 1901 to 1951 when natural climate still prevailed its population grew very slowly increasing barely 50% in fifty years. Then when the US started big time pollution of the atmosphere with CO2 the Bangladesh population exploded upward doubling every 30 years.

The way I see it Bangladesh should be paying the United States not the other way around.

We have had natural climate for billions of years up to this actual second. We are natural and if we influence climate very much, which may be possible and may be unlikely, whatever our influence is, it is still natural. We are not Super-Natural and we are not Sub-Natural, we are Natural and our influence is Natural, what ever it might be.

Population growth of China, India, Africa, and Latin America all vastly outpaced the United States and Western Europe beginning in 1950 when the United States began consuming fossil fuel like there was no tomorrow.

The data certainly argues against US consumption of fossil fuel harming any of these regions. Quite the contrary in fact! The United States is the greatest thing that ever phucking happened to the human race.

Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009)[2] was an American biologist, humanitarian and Nobel laureate who has been called “the father of the Green Revolution”,[3] “agriculture’s greatest spokesperson”[4] and “The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives”.[5] He is one of seven people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal[6] and was also awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor.[7]

Borlaug received his B.Sc. Biology 1937 and Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties.

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[8] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[9] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

Later in his life, he helped apply these methods of increasing food production to Asia and Africa.[10]

When do we get paid for this? All these imagined harms from the technological/industrial/military juggernaut called the United States of America and conveniently forgotten massive benefits.

What a bunch of ingrates. It kind of makes me want to take Ann Coulter’s advice: “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”.

“According to the IPCC, global sea level rise is expected to rise at the rate of about 4 mm/yr, or about 65 cm increase by 2080. Observed sea level rise in Bangladesh is 17 mm/yr. The WorldBank’s solution is not only inadequate to deal with a projected sea level rise that may exceed 2 m, but according to Pethick, the so-called ‘cure’ – polders (flood embankments) – are actually making the sea level rise problem worse.”

It does seem odd at first glance, but you have to remember that the sea rise until the early 1900’s was simply a natural phenomenon, with several ongoing natural ‘drivers’, and, because it occurred so slowly, no one except the experts ever noticed. Even then it was difficult to measure and the data required much flogging to extracted the long term average.

Now, although the sea continues to rise so slowly that it is only noticeable by the experts, the game has changed. Instead of NATURAL rise, modern sea level increases are the direct consequence of not just CO2, but ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 (ACO2), which is being dumped into the atmosphere willy nilly by ‘big carbon’ corporations for their own selfish enrichment over the helpless and soon-to-be, if We Don’t Do Something, dead bodies of the rest of us who are being forced to purchase and burn their filthy products.

When sea level rise was being driven by natural forces, it rose pretty evenly all over the world, being a liquid and all. Now, things have changed. Now, ACO2 has taken over and the rise is no longer even, but has begun piling up in big heaps off the coasts of the countries most vulnerable, sympathetic, and in need of reparations in the form of OPM, doled out by folks like the aforementioned WLDG.

This transformation of the oceans from flat to ACO2 driven ‘lumpiness’ has interesting implications on its own. For example, the cost of shipping. Do ships burn more excess fuel on the way UP the oceanographic hills than they save by coasting down, is it vice versa, or is the process a ‘fuel wash’ on average? Then there are the future business opportunities. In a few years, with the oceans rising at 4-5X differential rates locally, sooner or later the ‘hills’ will be high enough that foresighted entrepreneurs who have surveyed the peaks and valleys will be able to establish oceanic ‘ski resorts’, where the happy customers are towed to the top of the watery hill by something like a jet ski, then schuss down to the floating lodge at the bottom on their water skis, sans ropes, where they can enjoy their umbrella sheltered mai tai’s surrounded by nubile, bikini-clad Water-ski bunnies. Of course every silver lining has its cloud: How are traditional ice-bound ski resorts going to compete when THEIR ski bunnies are so swaddled against the cold that it is only under the most favorable of circumstances (in the 90 degree lodge in front of the fireplace, for example) that the girl-bunnies can be distinguished from the boy-bunnies by the casual observer. Oh wait, never mind. The same ACO2 that has provided the opportunity for sea-bunnies has also turned off the snow at the traditional ice-bound lodges, so the competition problem won’t occur. In fact, those who are already expert at running places like Whistler, for example, may just shut down their operations in the rock-and-snow mountains and move to the sea-mountains without missing a beat.

Ad infinitum.

My apologies to Dr. Curry and to John.

But John does raise an interesting question: given that the ocean is liquid, just how does one get 4-5X differential rates of sea level rise in different areas of the ocean? And if the ocean is NOT rising at different rates in different areas, wouldn’t it be reasonable to attribute problems like those of Bangladesh to something other than ACO2?

Taking too much water out of underground aquifers causes the land above them to sink. Since the Nobel prize winning US biologist Norm Borlaug invented high-yield grains and promoted agriculture of same in the third world the Bangladeshis were able to quadruple their population since 1950 and all those souls need to drink and flush of course which put an unsustainable strain on the local water table.

So you see it’s still our fault. We made it possible to feed billions more people in the world but forgot to do something to prevent them from overbreeding. In reparation I say we invade their country, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.

The big lesson I take from all of the above commentary is that the kleptocratic, nominal do gooders of the UN, the inept and equally kleptocratic rulers of the undeveloped and so called developing third world and their assorted and numerous NGO running dogs have a very serious problem on their hands that may well spell the end of a lot of the handouts they have so greedily sucked up. Most that so called, ie conscience money, “aid” from the west just disappears into that vast financial sink hole of the Cayman islands / Singapore / Switzerland / Belgium’s / Andorra’s very secretive banking systems.

One “delegate [ ? ] at COP 19 “claimed” to represent 500 NGO’s in Africa alone.
And that is a true measure of the channelling of vast aid sums to the high living executives and the ever increasing proliferation of the NGO’s “reports” writers. The production of glossy propaganda laden reports seems to be the prime and in some cases, the only visible function of most of those NGO’s.
For an example of the costs, consequences and corruption created by such a number of often corruptly run NGO’s take a look at the financials for the Green Climate Trust Fund I posted on at 6.26pm.

The level and volume of sardonic, sarcastic, scathing commentary from the Climate etc denizens, a level and type of commentary which seems to be an increasingly common across the western political spectrum.
on the now incessant and increasingly strident and ever more extremist demands from the non western world for ever more unrealistic “compensation” for totally unseen and unproven supposed acts and sins of the western world against the third world claimants is now producing an increasingly hostile back lash against those third world claimants by the citizens of the western donors of aid funds.

The more extremist the demands become by the so called third world, if you can call a couple of the largest political entities on Earth, China and India with GDP’s much greater than a lot of the developed western world donor countries, “third world”, the greater will be the former donor countries reaction and backlash against any further aid of any magnitude.

The greed of those kleptocrats and their equally kleptocratic NGO supporters in the third world are leading to them and their subjects being quietly cut off from further aid as the economies of the west steadily descend into a further financial malaise that might be of a decade or more in length
. Bluntly, a lot of the so called developed world, arguably due to the gross political incompetency of it’s own making, no longer has the means or the resources to keep on handing out aid in any significant amounts to the kleptocracies of the third world.

They will be increasingly left on their own just as the west was when it started the Industrial Revolution from a base which was much, much lower than where any third world country is today.

Outstanding, ROM. While I tend to ‘flail around the margins’, you nailed it.

Unfortunately, there is at least one problem with your ending:

“Bluntly, a lot of the so called developed world, arguably due to the gross political incompetency of it’s own making, no longer has the means or the resources to keep on handing out aid in any significant amounts to the kleptocracies of the third world.”

Sadly, while you are correct that the UN/NGO’s, which have been money laundering scams from their inception and which have become increasingly blatant about it over the years, you forget that the WESTERN politicians, at least the progressive subset of them, are prime beneficiaries of the money laundering. The idea that western governments, progressive to the core, are going to suddenly wake up, say ‘What were we thinking?’, and stop enriching themselves with strokes of their own pens is attractive, but implausible.

No Bob, it was the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party. The nationalist side being one that espoused spying, homeland security and general overly patriotic themes. Then socialism comes from the left. Then all you need is one pyschopath to get elected president and a complicit media.

As we can now plainly see, the global warming scam is really all about money.
Even if we assume that the GW theory is correct, the obvious question has to be asked;
How can developing nations ask for money for our past CO2 emissions, when all the research clearly shows that the warming we have has so far is net beneficial? Shouldn’t they be paying us instead?
And we also need to bear in mind that the developing countries emissions have already exceeded ours; and on top of that, before 2020 even their historical emissions will surpass ours.
Therefore, even if their argument is correct and we are forced to pay ‘reparations’ to the 3rd world despots to ‘make up’ for our higher historical CO2 emissions, after 2020 the situation will reverse.
Does this mean that they will start to pay us after that date??
Somehow I don’t think so.
Robert Holmes

There now seem to be comments from two Johns on the blog. I’m going to sign mine John II from now on…. I contributed only this comment:

“This passage has me scratching my head:

According to the IPCC, global sea level rise is expected to rise at the rate of about 4 mm/yr, or about 65 cm increase by 2080. Observed sea level rise in Bangladesh is 17 mm/yr. The WorldBank’s solution is not only inadequate to deal with a projected sea level rise that may exceed 2 m, but according to Pethick, the so-called ‘cure’ – polders (flood embankments) – are actually making the sea level rise problem worse.”

Negotiating at this time, when storm frequency and intensity has not changed in any significant way is demonstrating moral hazard in action. From the Phillipine typhoon to Sandy to droughts and floods there is no significant change except that people have built more stuff in zones that can be impacted by weather. But there there are more people, so there is giong to be more stuff to get damaged. The idea of giong after country x because a townin country y was hit by a storm is not a rational idea, whatever else it may be.

The need to throw away the ‘weather is not climate ‘ mantra we see here , came about because of the failure of the models to match reality . Its a sign of desperation , as with the hidden heat in the deep ocean . And an indication of how for some this theory has obtained religions like status were error is impossible in the dogma , it can never been that the knowledge is ‘wrong ‘ so basic idea wrong only that the knowledge is imperfect but basic idea still sound .
Its like claiming cats can fly , but when its proved time and again they cannot , refusing to accept this claiming cats can fly its just no one as yet used to right approach to prove it but they will ‘any day now ‘